Manrell v. Canada, 2003 DTC 5225, 2003 FCA 128 -- summary under Property

By services, 28 November, 2015

A portion of the consideration paid by a purchaser of shares of operating companies in which the taxpayer had been a significant shareholder (directly, or through holding companies) was allocated as consideration for his entering into non-compete agreements. Sharlow J.A. stated (at paras. 25, 53):

It is implicit in this notion of “property” that “property” must have or entail some exclusive right to make a claim against someone else. A general right to do something that anyone can do, or a right that belongs to everyone, is not the property “of anyone”. …

[T]here is not a single [Canadian] case in which the word "property" has been held to include a right that is not or does not entail an exclusive and legally enforceable claim.

She further found that the phrase "a right of any kind whatever" did not expand the ordinary meaning of "property" to include a non-exclusive, commonly held right to carry on a business, such as that held by the taxpayer.

Topics and taglines
Tagline
"property" entails an exclusive right
Words and phrases
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
337312
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em><a name=\"Manrell\"></a>Manrell v. The Queen</em></strong>, 2003 DTC 5225, 2003 FCA 128",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": ""
}
Workflow properties
Workflow state